Probable Cause for Traffic Stop

[StickyFingers]

The similarities ended when you posted the ridiculous idea that the officers could climb a tree and look inside ... since this would be a blatant violation of the law, it is a ridiculous presumption.

- Carl

LOL!..That was my same thought when I posted he was being ridiculous.

And to think these two scenarios are the same (or had similarities)..was the reason I posted his reasoning skills were flawed.

I agree with Homeguru...OP is grasping at straws.

 

[peanut44]

You have already admitted this is much more than a simple infraction.
How do you know that the cop did not suspect drunk driving from the get go. From your explanation of your driving , it sounds like a real possibility.

Bottom line,,,,,,you screwed up. Fight it with an attorney by your side.

True, I made mistakes, but the bottom line is that if I get convicted, besides all of the legal penalties, I lose my job, which makes everything I've accomplished up to this point in my life, worthless.

The bottom line is this. This officer witnessed me doing something stupid, maybe illegal, maybe not. Then, as someone said before, gave me more rope to hang myself. The problem I have with it is that the extra rope he gave me, was not his to give, It was MY .2 miles.

Yes, I'll be using the best attorney I can find, but they will tell me I'm nuts just like you guys did. Hell, if I can convince Carl, I can convince anybody!

 

[peanut44]

The similarities ended when you posted the ridiculous idea that the officers could climb a tree and look inside ... since this would be a blatant violation of the law, it is a ridiculous presumption.

- Carl

Well, which is it that is rediculous? Climbing a tree, looking in the window?

Is climbing an 8 foot tree more rediculous than covering .2 MILES of ground?

Is there a statute that says trees and windows are out, but covering long stretches of earth are in?

I'm actually serious on this one. Please explain why one is rediculous and one should result in me being guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[StickyFingers]

Well, which is it that is rediculous? Climbing a tree, looking in the window?

Is climbing an 8 foot tree more rediculous than covering .2 MILES of ground?

Is there a statute that says trees and windows are out, but covering long stretches of earth are in?

I'm actually serious on this one. Please explain why one is rediculous and one should result in me being guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

You've got to be kidding! Are you really this dense?

 

[peanut44]

You've got to be kidding! Are you really this dense?

You guys are telling me my analogy is rediculous. I'm asking which item makes it rediculous and more importantly, why? If you were as smart as YOU think you are, you'd have an answer for me.

Is it any more reasonable for someone to travel a great distance over land in order to see something they wouldn't be able to see otherwise, or to climb 8 feet for the same purpose?

IS there a statute or case that says trees are off limits?

 

[StickyFingers]

You guys are telling me my analogy is rediculous. I'm asking which item makes it rediculous and more importantly, why? If you were as smart as YOU think you are, you'd have an answer for me.

Is it any more reasonable for someone to travel a great distance over land in order to see something they wouldn't be able to see otherwise, or to climb 8 feet for the same purpose?

IS there a statute or case that says trees are off limits?

The answers to your legal questions rest within the all of the previous posts.

You are not gonna hear the answer you want, no matter how many times you try to manipulate your situation.

Like I said previously, your reasoning skills are flawed.

If by now you do not comprehend what has been told to you, then you are never gonna understand.

Please, by all means, launch a suit against the local police for civil rights violation(s). Please let us know how that turns out.

Good luck!

 

[Two Bit]

First off, the officer is under no obligation to blue light someone immediately after observing a violation.

What we have here is someone sliding to a stop at a red light. I suppose you could articulate that as Too Fast for Conditions (OCGA 40-6-180), but I think that's a stretch. I think it is reasonable suspicion of someone who is having some driving issues. It points to someone who is driving too quickly or not paying close enough attention to what he's doing. That's why the officer turned around.

Then the driver drove on the left side of a road without a center lane marker. That's a probable cause to stop someone for OCGA 40-6-40. Georgia’s weaving statute (OCGA 40-6-48) only refers to roads laned for traffic. However, weaving could still be articulatable suspicion that would justify a traffic stop.

At this point the officer has cause to stop the person, but he doesn't. I think the Georgia courts would see that as irrelevant. There are plenty of appellate decisions about officers following DUI suspects into neighboring jurisdictions, much less a short distance. (What was it, .3 miles?)

Then the officer goes onto privately maintained roads. In Georgia, an officer, or anyone else, can go onto another's property unless it's posted against trespassing. Those neighborhoods that are gated generally want police presence, but that's not really a legal issue.

Since the officer has probable cause of a misdemeanor committed in his presence, the officer is legally in "hot pursuit," and he can follow you wherever you go. Legally, he doesn't have to turn on his lights and siren for it to be "hot pursuit" under the law.

Now he finally decides to stop you once you reach your personal property. That's fine. If he had made no attempt to stop you before you entered your home, we'd be in a different situation. You can't break into a person's home to arrest them for a misdemeanor without a warrant, some very serious exigent circumstances, or actual pursuit (a foot chase).

All of the actions you describe sound legal. You don't even mention anything that sounds unreasonable.

A note on private property traffic enforcement in Georgia: DUI in the state of Georgia applies to any location in the state. I arrested a guy on a four wheeler in his backyard for DUI. Most moving violations are not a crime in Georgia if they're on private property, unless it is a commonly used cut through to get from one road to another or the owner of the private property requests traffic enforcement (which is almost never done).

Since DUI, can be enforced on private property, this whole incident could have taken place in a gated community, because the officer would have had plenty of articulatable suspicion of DUI to make a stop.

 

[CdwJava]

FYI, Peanut, Two Bit is a GA law enforcement officer that I have known for more than a few years ... I would heed his words on this issue as it applies to GA law.

It simply adds creedence to that information which you have already been provided.

Contact a DUI attorney and hope for the best possible outcome for your situation. But right now you are fishing for red herrings.



- Carl

 

[peanut44]

First off, the officer is under no obligation to blue light someone immediately after observing a violation.

What we have here is someone sliding to a stop at a red light. I suppose you could articulate that as Too Fast for Conditions (OCGA 40-6-180), but I think that's a stretch. I think it is reasonable suspicion of someone who is having some driving issues. It points to someone who is driving too quickly or not paying close enough attention to what he's doing. That's why the officer turned around.

Then the driver drove on the left side of a road without a center lane marker. That's a probable cause to stop someone for OCGA 40-6-40. Georgia’s weaving statute (OCGA 40-6-48) only refers to roads laned for traffic. However, weaving could still be articulatable suspicion that would justify a traffic stop.

At this point the officer has cause to stop the person, but he doesn't. I think the Georgia courts would see that as irrelevant. There are plenty of appellate decisions about officers following DUI suspects into neighboring jurisdictions, much less a short distance. (What was it, .3 miles?)

Then the officer goes onto privately maintained roads. In Georgia, an officer, or anyone else, can go onto another's property unless it's posted against trespassing. Those neighborhoods that are gated generally want police presence, but that's not really a legal issue.

Since the officer has probable cause of a misdemeanor committed in his presence, the officer is legally in "hot pursuit," and he can follow you wherever you go. Legally, he doesn't have to turn on his lights and siren for it to be "hot pursuit" under the law.

Now he finally decides to stop you once you reach your personal property. That's fine. If he had made no attempt to stop you before you entered your home, we'd be in a different situation. You can't break into a person's home to arrest them for a misdemeanor without a warrant, some very serious exigent circumstances, or actual pursuit (a foot chase).

All of the actions you describe sound legal. You don't even mention anything that sounds unreasonable.

A note on private property traffic enforcement in Georgia: DUI in the state of Georgia applies to any location in the state. I arrested a guy on a four wheeler in his backyard for DUI. Most moving violations are not a crime in Georgia if they're on private property, unless it is a commonly used cut through to get from one road to another or the owner of the private property requests traffic enforcement (which is almost never done).

Since DUI, can be enforced on private property, this whole incident could have taken place in a gated community, because the officer would have had plenty of articulatable suspicion of DUI to make a stop.

Thank you Two Bit!

What you say makes perfect sense. Naturally, I have some more questions.

Lets say for the sake of argument that there is a NO TRESPASSING sign in front of my neighborhood. I don't know what the verbage is for sure.

You state, since the officer has probable cause for a misdemeanor, he's in hot pursuit and can follow anywhere. I thought that the probable cause for the misdemeanor (DUI) came from smelling me, watching me, and talking to me. Up until the point where he came into physical contact with me, there was no evidence of DUI, only evidence of bad driving, which I don't think is a misdemeanor. So, does the 'hot pursuit' rule apply to traffic violations like weaving as well as misdemeanors? Maybe traffic violations ARE misdemeanors? Dunno.

Bad driving IS probable cause for a stop. Agreed. Once stopped the officer can ask questions, look around, and smell things. The results of those actions can lead to probable cause for DUI. Makes sense.

In my case, I was being followed for weaving, which I don't believe to be a misdemeanor. If 'hot pursuit' only applies to midemeanors and not infractions, he had no grounds to be in my driveway where he gained the evidence to make an arrest for dui.

I know I'm screwed and it's nobody's fault but your's truly, I'm just looking to learn some things at this point.

 

[peanut44]

Just for all of you guys who called me stupid, crazy, and whatever else, here's a case where someone got off for similar circumstances. It was however overturned by the state 6 months ago. I may not have been right, but I don't think I was a fool for asking. Thanks Two Bit for the hot pursuit tip.

3rd page top left

http://www.pacga.org/downloads/caselaw_update/CLU 08-05-05 No 31-05.pdf

 

[CdwJava]

That was because weaving within one's lane is not an offense under GA law. Not the same thing at all.

- Carl

 

[peanut44]

weaving within the lane may not be illegal, but it is PC for making a stop. I just read it in a police training manual, I didn't save the link.

 

[CdwJava]

weaving within the lane may not be illegal, but it is PC for making a stop. I just read it in a police training manual, I didn't save the link.

Still not the same thing.

But, mention it to your attorney.

- Carl

 

[Two Bit]

Weaving within your lane of traffic or on a roadway that isn't laned does not give an officer probable cause to believe that there was a violation of OCGA 40-6-48 (Weaving). It could give an officer reasonable suspicion to stop the vehilce.

In State v. Durr (it's spelled incorreclty in the summary), the state is the appealing party. The lower court suppresed the stop. The state appealed, and the appealte court reveresed the lower court's suppression. So the driver didn't get away with it. Here's a quote:


So, regardless of whether Southern Polytechnic State University is a part of the state university system, if Officer Bennett was in hot pursuit of Durr when he left the campus, the arrest was proper. The trial court did not address whether the facts warranted a conclusion that Bennett was in hot pursuit. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

BTW, I wasn't aware of that website, but I like it a lot. Thanks.

The PC for the hot pursiut comes from him observing you drive on the wrong side of the road which is a misdemanor (Almost all traffic violations in Georgia are misdemeanors punishable by 12 months in jail and/or $1000 fine). Or as the case you found points out, a hot pursuit can be the result of reasonable articulable suspicion which would be the result of your other driving behaviors.

You can only have PC for violations of the law. Mere bad driving wouldn't be PC, it could be reaonable suspicion.

 

[peanut44]

BTW, I wasn't aware of that website, but I like it a lot. Thanks.

Did you like it enough to drop a good word for me with the boys downtown?